Luton Airport car park fire

[Tony The Welsh Twat]

1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.

Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.

Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?

[Colin Bignell]

The owners should claim against their own car insurance and who pays
them is the insurers' problem. This is obviously a no-blame claim, so it
wouldn't affect the no-claim bonus on many policies.

--
Colin Bignell

[Fredxx]

On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:

> 1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
> structure collapsing due to fire.
>
> Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
> vehicles parked here" type of notice.

A case of negligence against the car park owners and operators would
trump such a notice.

> Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
> from the site owners' public liability insurance?

No, but a vehicle owner will have to prove negligence. I would say an
uphill struggle. More likely to gain recompense from the vehicle causing
the fire, again assuming the owner or manufacturer isn't negligent.

[Alan Lee]

On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:

No. For things like another car scraping the Owners car, or a break in
(when it isnt advertised as a 'secure car park' [1]), then the Car Park
Owners would not be liable for those damages, but, for structural damage
caused by their building collapsing etc, then they are liable, as it
could not be reasonably foreseen by someone parking that the building
will catch fire/collapse/flood etc.

[1] I do wonder if there are conditions in their terms and conditions,
whereby they advertise the car park as 'secure', yet do not pay
compensation if your car is stolen or broken into , in their secure car
park.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

[David McNeish]

No, such signs don't have much legal effect. But there's no principle
that the car park operator is otherwise liable for damage anyway.

[SH]

Well..... I don't think any notice can absolve anyone of their
responsibilties under health and safety laws...

i.e. its a given that a car will have flammable chemicals on board a.k.a
petrol, diesel LPG or lithium in the case of EVs

So if one car bursts into flames, you would expect the owners to have
fire protection measures such as firewalls, fire breaks, compartmented
car park areas simply to (a) reduce the speed of fire, (b) reduce teh
rate of spread of teh fire (c) minimise risk of injury to fire fighters etc.

As it happens I have seen car parks with water sprinkler systems for
this very reason so if the said car park had no fire protection or
suppression measures then I think the owners are on shaky ground in
terms of negligence

The sides of the car park alone didn't have any wind breaks so the whole
car park probably acted as a giant chimney allowing the fire to spread
so quickly.

[Colin Bignell]

I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that
they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.

--
Colin Bignell

[Martin Brown]

On 11/10/2023 19:44, SH wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>> 1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
>> structure collapsing due to fire.
>>
>> Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to
>> vehicles parked here" type of notice.
>>
>> Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
>> from the site owners' public liability insurance?
>>
>
>
> Well..... I don't think any notice can absolve anyone of their
> responsibilties under health and safety laws...
>
> i.e. its a given that a car will have flammable chemicals on board a.k.a
> petrol, diesel LPG or lithium in the case of EVs
>
> So if one car bursts into flames, you would expect the owners to have
> fire protection measures such as firewalls, fire breaks, compartmented
> car park areas simply to (a) reduce the speed of fire, (b) reduce teh
> rate of spread of teh fire (c) minimise risk of injury to fire fighters
> etc.

It looked like a rather flimsy open steel structure that was adequate to
hold the weight of the cars but only just. The moment that steelwork got
seriously hot in the fire it was compromised. Without intumescent
coatings on the steelwork it was doomed to collapse once the fire really
got going. The same fate did for the twin towers in 9/11. Red hot
steelwork doesn't have enough strength to maintain building rigidity.

There are intumescent paint systems that can mitigate that and gain an
extra hour or two for the emergency services to fire fight before the
structure weakens and fails catastrophically.

https://www.nullifire.com/en-gb/products-systems/product-ranges-overview/structural-steel-fire-protection/

It will be interesting to see what the enquiry actually says about the
engineering decisions of that design. I know plenty of very similar
carparks. I have *never* seen one with sprinkler system.

> As it happens I have seen car parks with water sprinkler systems for
> this very reason so if the said car park had no fire protection or
> suppression measures then I think the owners are on shaky ground in
> terms of negligence

I have seen so few such installations that I can't recall any apart from
those built into the underground carparks of very expensive high rise
prestige office blocks. The sort that exclude all LPG vehicles entirely.

Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the 1970's
& 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently retired
with extreme prejudice.

> The sides of the car park alone didn't have any wind breaks so the whole
> car park probably acted as a giant chimney allowing the fire to spread
> so quickly.

Once you have a fuel tank explode in a full carpark then all bets are off.

My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?

--
Martin Brown

[David McNeish]

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

> My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
> original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?

None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of
negligence on the part of their insured.

[Colin Bignell]

On 12/10/2023 09:36, Martin Brown wrote:
....

> Most multistories I use are boring concrete utility ones from the 1970's
> & 80's. The Gateshead one featured in "Get Carter" was recently retired
> with extreme prejudice.

The one at Luton Airport was built only a few years ago, as part of an
airport renovation.

....

> My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of the
> original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?

That is going to depend upon the insurance policy. While there is no
limit on third party claims for personal injury, legally, the insurers
only need to offer £1 million cover for property damage, but many
policies offer more than that.


--
Colin Bignell

[Fredxx]

There are precedents such as the Selby Train crash:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1554682/Record-price-of-tragedy.html

[Fredxx]

Is that limit per claim, or total claim?

[Colin Bignell]

It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
impossible.

* reports vary as to which model.

--
Colin Bignell

[notya...@gmail.com]

Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their insurance should cover this.

[Clive Page]

On 12/10/2023 09:04, Colin Bignell wrote:

> I imagine there are a lot of insurance companies fervently hoping that they are not the ones that insured the first car to catch fire.

I saw posted online (forget where) someone imagining the letter the owner of this Range Rover might send to his/her insurance company:

===
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to claim for the replacement cost of my car, which spontaneously combusted.

You may also get claims from the owners of another 1200 cars who were parked in the same car park. And also from Luton Airport for the cost of demolishing and rebuilding their car park. And for the cost of closing down the airport for most of a day.

I hope this will not affect my renewal premium.

Yours faithfully

===

--
Clive Page

[Colin Bignell]

The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
of the car that first caught fire are liable for. I think that could be
affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in ignoring
a recall notice relating to a fire risk.

--
Colin Bignell

[Martin Brown]

Recalls for potentially quite dangerous faults have a bad habit of not
always catching up with the owners of such vehicles. Even when you are
the first owner there is still a considerable lag - several weeks after
the fault is notified before you can get the thing put right at the main
dealers (and only they can do the authorised warrantee repair).

It could get very interesting if the vehicle was wait listed for repair
of a known potential manufacturing fault with a risk of setting fire.

They broke my car in one such recall upgrade of the diesel fuel pump and
it was never quite the same after their "critical fault remediation"
although admittedly it was less likely to spontaneously combust.

I also think the minimalist design of the carpark played a big role in
the rapid propagation of the fire and resulting structural failure.

--
Martin Brown

[Fredxx]

Perhaps the car park without sprinklers may also play a part in claims?
Certainly for the building owners as cars should be expected to
occasionally burst into flames.

[Sam Plusnet]

Question: How effective would a sprinkler system be in this situation?
Water is far from ideal when dealing with a petrol/diesel fire.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Colin Bignell]

I have never seen them, except in underground car parks. I am also not
sure how effective they would be in the case of a lithium ion battery
fire. Possibly a misting system might stop the fire from spreading to
other cars.

--
Colin Bignell

[David McNeish]

Just about any building *could* have better fire precautions, but I don't think
you can infer negligence if it complies with relevant regulations.

[Colin Bignell]

On 12/10/2023 21:11, Jethro_uk wrote:

> That's what reinsurers are for ...
>

So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
carrying the cover?

--
Colin Bignell

[Martin Brown]

My instinct is that sprinkler system vendors will tell you that they
have the magic bullet and it would all be fine if only...

However, the best that I think a sprinkler system might achieve in these
circumstances would be to slow down the spread of the fire to
neighbouring vehicles until the fire brigade arrives. A dense water
misting system might be better at slowing down the fire with much less
water used but can also be very disorienting to anyone caught up in it.

That might have been good enough to avoid catastrophic failure - I don't
know. I think the enquiry into it will be very interesting (it should
report by the middle of the century if Grenfell is any guide). Airport
fire brigade training and kit is very good on fighting kerosene fires
with foam so I'm a bit surprised that it all got so far out of hand.

Problem is burning fuel floats on water and you could end up spreading
the fire instead. Water based fire extinguishers are only any good for
smashing open locked firedoors (that is what I was taught). A wastepaper
basket fire is about all they can be used on but they tick a box.

Solvent fires require correct use of the right extinguisher. General
advice is unless you are trained or know exactly what to do is beat a
hasty retreat and raise the alarm. Only worth tackling a solvent fire if
you know what you are doing and it is safe to do so. And you should
raise the alarm first - always making sure you have a path to retreat.

It would take a dry powder extinguisher to take down a car fire even at
the early stages and you must aim at the base of the fire for it to be
effective. Untrained people often aim too high partly because of the
recoil of discharge and a tendency to point it at the flames.

A CO2 extinguisher might take it down if you got there soon enough and
knew exactly what you were doing. The ultimate car fire extinguisher was
a tiny 8" cylinder of BCF (now banned under the Montreal protocol).

Our instructor took out a 16' square tray of waste solvent fire with a
few puffs of BCF after the same fire had been tackled with 6 dry powder
(success), 8 CO2 (just failed), 12 water (massive flare up). It was by
far the most impressive and exciting safety courses I have ever been on.

--
Martin Brown

[Colin Bignell]

When I did a bit of race track marshalling, we were taught not to even
start to tackle a car fire until there were two big dry powder
extinguishers and two similarly large foam extinguishers ready. Anything
less, we were told, was doomed to fail. The foam was to protect the
driver, while the dry powder was used on the car.

>
> A CO2 extinguisher might take it down if you got there soon enough and
> knew exactly what you were doing.

Also, assuming the extinguishers were large enough. When my father's car
caught fire, it took two x 5kg CO2 extinguishers to put it out and that
was only a fairly small fuel fire under the bonnet. Luckily for him, he
was stopped by a garage mechanic driving behind him who saw burning fuel
dropping onto the road and he had the extinguishers on board.

> The ultimate car fire extinguisher was
> a tiny 8" cylinder of BCF (now banned under the Montreal protocol).

I used to carry one of those in my car, when they were still permitted.

>
> Our instructor took out a 16' square tray of waste solvent fire with a
> few puffs of BCF after the same fire had been tackled with 6 dry powder
> (success), 8 CO2 (just failed), 12 water (massive flare up). It was by
> far the most impressive and exciting safety courses I have ever been on.
>

--

Colin Bignell

[notya...@gmail.com]

And counter indicative when dealing with lithium! Whilst less exiting than sodium or potassium, lithium metal floats and burns on water!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxhW7TtXIAM

Back in 2012 the battery of an early Stagecoach hybrid bus caught fire. Situated under the back seat upstairs, there was very little left of that part of the bus when I drove past it.

>
> --
> Sam Plusnet

[Colin Bignell]

On 13/10/2023 09:32, Jethro_uk wrote:

> No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
>
> The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one
> reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a legal
> strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in question were
> fully compliant with every line of every law concerning construction,
> operation and maintenance ?
>

Obviously a lot of money there for the lawyers, but I would expect a
four year old building to have a better chance of being compliant than
one from, say, 1985, when the airport opened its then new international
terminal.


--
Colin Bignell

[The Todal]

On 13/10/2023 14:11, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Well yes. But the regulations are very dense. And a failure to comply
> with even a single sentence could be used towards a claim of negligence.
>


We don't have all the facts. But unless the owners of the car park are
provably negligent, neither the owners or the insurers will have any
liability and it would be up to each vehicle owner to claim from their
own motor insurers. If some have insured third party only, then they
will be out of pocket.

I don't suppose there is any obligation to install a sprinkler system in
a car park, but if there was one and it wasn't working correctly then
maybe there might be some liability.

Why did the original car catch fire? I think most car fires are
unexplained - cannot be traced to any interference from the owner or any
poor workmanship during construction or maintenance.

[The Todal]

On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner of
>>>>> the
>>>>> original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
>>>>
>>>> None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some sort of
>>>> negligence on the part of their insured.
>>>>
>>> It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
>>> subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> * reports vary as to which model.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Bignell
>>
>> Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
>> insurance should cover this.
>>
>
> The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.

If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
of the car.

> I think that could be
> affected by whether or not the car owner had been negligent in ignoring
> a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
>

But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?

[Colin Bignell]

On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 15:45, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 14:35:55 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2023 10:16, David McNeish wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 10:06:11 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is how much of the consequential damage is the owner
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> original fire starting vehicle's insurer on the hook for?
>>>>>
>>>>> None, I would have thought, unless someone can demonstrate some
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> negligence on the part of their insured.
>>>>>
>>>> It seems to have been a Land Rover product* that may have been the
>>>> subject of a voluntary recall due to a risk of fire. So that is not
>>>> impossible.
>>>>
>>>> * reports vary as to which model.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Colin Bignell
>>>
>>> Even so most accidents are caused by driver negligence, so their
>>> insurance should cover this.
>>>
>>
>> The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
>
>
> If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
> of the car.

They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
unless the policy provides for a higher figure.

>
>
>> I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
>> been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
>>
>
> But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
> until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
> the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?

--
Colin Bignell

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:
> > On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:

SNIP

> >>
> >> The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
> >> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
> >
> >
> > If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
> > of the car.

> They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
> case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
> unless the policy provides for a higher figure.

The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.

The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.

> >
> >
> >> I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
> >> been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
> >>
> >
> > But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
> > until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
> > the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?

I have had two recall notices on my BMW, both relating to EGR*, with a slight risk of fire. Of course I got them done, however neither had a "do not drive" until warning.

* if the car was driven at autobahn speed for while then the very hot exhaust gases could melt some plastic part and escape into the engine compartment and possibly start a fire.

> --
> Colin Bignell

[Colin Bignell]

On 13/10/2023 15:44, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
> SNIP
>>>>
>>>> The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
>>>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
>>>
>>>
>>> If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
>>> of the car.
>
>> They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
>> case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
>> unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
>
> The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
>
> The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.

The statute requires unlimited third party cover for death or personal
injury, but sets a minimum of £1 million cover for property damage. So
far as the car owners are concerned, they will simply claim for their
own car and it will be the insurers who get to fight out the details of
who pays for what. I would expect that the airport would have taken out
insurance for the car park as well.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think that could be affected by whether or not the car owner had
>>>> been negligent in ignoring a recall notice relating to a fire risk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But would the recall notice have said that the car should not be driven
>>> until the modification had taken place? Would it have been brought to
>>> the notice of each owner even those who bought the vehicle second hand?
>
> I have had two recall notices on my BMW, both relating to EGR*, with a slight risk of fire. Of course I got them done, however neither had a "do not drive" until warning.
>
> * if the car was driven at autobahn speed for while then the very hot exhaust gases could melt some plastic part and escape into the engine compartment and possibly start a fire.
>
>> --
>> Colin Bignell
>

--
Colin Bignell

[The Todal]

On 13/10/2023 15:44, notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:30:44 UTC+1, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 14:55, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2023 18:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
> SNIP
>>>>
>>>> The question is just how much of the consequential damage the insurers
>>>> of the car that first caught fire are liable for.
>>>
>>>
>>> If any. They might only be obliged to pay the policyholder for the value
>>> of the car.
>
>> They are legally obliged to provide third party cover. However, in the
>> case of property damage, that can be as little as one million pounds,
>> unless the policy provides for a higher figure.
>
> The insurer is liable for third party loss to the third party. PI claimants can sue the insurer, not sure about property.
>
> The cover is compulsory, however if there is an exclusion or limit then the insurer can sue the insured for the excess balance paid out.
>

The third party cover indemnifies the policyholder against claims for
negligence, so if the policyholder wasn't negligent there is no need to
indemnify third parties. Or does anyone disagree?

[Colin Bignell]

Do many people insure third party only, rather than third party, fire
and theft?

> I don't suppose there is any obligation to install a sprinkler system in
> a car park, but if there was one and it wasn't working correctly then
> maybe there might be some liability.
>
> Why did the original car catch fire? I think most car fires are
> unexplained - cannot be traced to any interference from the owner or any
> poor workmanship during construction or maintenance.
>

From the Land Rover recall notice:

A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical
overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)

Failure of the MOSFET may cause an electrical cascade failure, causing
the DCDC convertor to experience an electrical short where the 12V
circuit shorts to ground. When the DCDC convertor experiences an
electrical short to ground, the 12V electrical system will discharge,
this will be indicated by the battery warning tell-tale on the
Instrument Cluster.

In extreme cases, the vehicle occupants may notice a burning smell
and/or smoke from the DCDC converter vent into the passenger
compartment. Where sufficient oxygen exists, a sustained vehicle fire
may occur


--
Colin Bignell

[Colin Bignell]

On 13/10/2023 16:08, The Todal wrote:

According to the RTA 1988, the requirement is that third party insurance
must cover any liability which may be incurred in respect of the death
of or bodily injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the use
of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain.
Negligence is not mentioned and I would take the view that consequential
damage as the result of an accidental car fire would also incur a
liability under the Act.

It also appears that the minimum amount of cover for damage to property
is now £1.2 million and not £1 million as I wrote previously.

--
Colin Bignell

[The Todal]

I disagree. "Any liability" means any liability in a court of law,
which has always been interpreted as negligence or breach of any
statutory duty.

There is no strict liability to compensate those injured by your car.
There was once a proposal that car drivers would be under a strict duty
to compensate cyclists injured by the car, which is the law in some
other countries. I don't think it came to anything but here's a petition
that was running for a while:
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/14839

[Martin Brown]

That sort of failure counts as negligent design in my book. DC2DC
converters should be able to self protect from a short to ground or if
they can't should blow a fuse somewhere before they catch fire...

Noisy power lines are a given in automotive systems. Starter motors do
really bad things to the nominal battery voltage when they engage.

--
Martin Brown

[Theo]

Colin Bignell <c...@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
> From the Land Rover recall notice:
>
> A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
> Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical
> overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
> of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)

It's a 2014, a diesel not a hybrid, with no outstanding recalls. As I
posted elsewhere:


Video of it on fire:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vp9VbIBhDzo

I ran that through a 400% AI upscale via Tensorpix.
Here's a still from the result:
https://ibb.co/mH9qfbj

That does confirm E10 EFL as the reg.

DVLA tax database says that's a red 2993cc diesel Land Rover, registered May 2014.
MOT database:
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=e10efl
says LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT first reg 30 May 2014, done 84k miles.
No outstanding recalls.

Range Rovers seem to come with quite a few variations of 'faces', including
aftermarket body kits, but the 2014 3.0 Sport does look like a good match:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202310102865664

When I put E10 EFL into Eurocarparts, it offers 8 types of lead acid (AGM)
battery. In the Range Rover EPC:
https://allbrit.de/epc.cfm?PAGE=4140105&CAR=TLX2013&SPRACHE=EN
all the batteries are AGM, even on the stop start models.

So:
It's a diesel
It's not a traditional hybrid
It may or may not have stop-start
It uses an AGM lead acid battery
It doesn't use a lithium battery
The battery is in the boot, not under the seat

Theo

[Theo]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 23:09:42 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:

> > So, there will be a lot of reinsurers who are hoping they aren't
> > carrying the cover?
>

> No more than a basic insurer hopes they never have to pay out.
>
> The thing is when the claim is in excess of £10million (which is one
> reinsurance threshold I know of) it's worth spending £1million on a legal
> strategy to deflect liability. Who knows if the premises in question were
> fully compliant with every line of every law concerning construction,
> operation and maintenance ?

How does it work with reinsurers?

In domestic insurance, there's an incentive not to claim (the excess, and
the likelihood of the premium going up next year). But when you have
claimed, there's not much incentive to reduce the amount of claim. If the
insurer says you have new-for-old cover, there's no benefit to the
policyholder to say 'it's ok, I'll save you some cash by buying second
hand'.

Is there some motivation for the first line insurer to minimise the amount
claimed from their reinsurer, to make it worth their while looking for
loopholes, rather than just dumping the whole lot on the reinsurer?
Assuming you can't get it below the level of needing to claim on the
reinsurance. Does reinsurance only cover 90% of the claim or something like
that?

Theo

[Colin Bignell]

On 14/10/2023 21:53, Theo wrote:
> Colin Bignell <c...@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>> From the Land Rover recall notice:
>>
>> A concern has been identified with certain 2019 and 2020 Model Year
>> Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport MHEV vehicles where an electrical
>> overload event in the 48Volt (V) electrical system may cause a failure
>> of the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (MOSFET)
>
> It's a 2014, a diesel not a hybrid, with no outstanding recalls. As I
> posted elsewhere:
>
>
> Video of it on fire:
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vp9VbIBhDzo
>
> I ran that through a 400% AI upscale via Tensorpix.
> Here's a still from the result:
> https://ibb.co/mH9qfbj
>
> That does confirm E10 EFL as the reg.

Unless you have a much better image, the number is indistinct at best,
no matter how much I enlarge it. However, it looks to me as though it
starts EX, which is an Essex registration.

E10 would be a pre-2001 Shropshire number, although it could be on a
later vehicle if the owner transferred it.

>
> DVLA tax database says that's a red 2993cc diesel Land Rover, registered May 2014.
> MOT database:
> https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=e10efl
> says LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT first reg 30 May 2014, done 84k miles.
> No outstanding recalls.
>
> Range Rovers seem to come with quite a few variations of 'faces', including
> aftermarket body kits, but the 2014 3.0 Sport does look like a good match:
> https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202310102865664
>
> When I put E10 EFL into Eurocarparts, it offers 8 types of lead acid (AGM)
> battery. In the Range Rover EPC:
> https://allbrit.de/epc.cfm?PAGE=4140105&CAR=TLX2013&SPRACHE=EN
> all the batteries are AGM, even on the stop start models.
>
> So:
> It's a diesel
> It's not a traditional hybrid
> It may or may not have stop-start
> It uses an AGM lead acid battery
> It doesn't use a lithium battery
> The battery is in the boot, not under the seat
>
> Theo
>

--
Colin Bignell

[Brian]

Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>> 1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the
>> structure collapsing due to fire.
>>
>> Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles
>> parked here" type of notice.
>>

>> Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming
>> from the site owners' public liability insurance?
>>
>

> The owners should claim against their own car insurance and who pays
> them is the insurers' problem. This is obviously a no-blame claim, so it
> wouldn't affect the no-claim bonus on many policies.
>

Even with protected no claims, that doesn’t mean they might not face higher
premiums. Insurers sometimes load premiums even if you have an ‘incident’
without even claiming on your insurance. Their theory is ( and I’m not
justifying it) is those who have ‘incidents’ have been statistically shown
to be a higher risk.

[Clive Page]

On 11/10/2023 16:15, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> 1500 vehicles have apparently suffered damage as a result of the structure collapsing due to fire.
>
> Almost all car parks have a "we aren't liable for any damage to vehicles parked here" type of notice.
>
> Does that notice absolve the site owners from vehicle owners claiming from the site owners' public liability insurance?

I've just seen reports of a car park fire at Bristol Airport. See, for example:
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/regional-news/mystery-over-bristol-airport-fire-8966687

Fortunately this one was extinguished after only about 11 cars were destroyed, and it was in the open air not a multi-storey structure which must have made it a bit easier. Nobody seems to know yet what make of car caught fire first.


--
Clive Page